So it's BSD license but you don't get the mpeg-la license if you build it yourself, because it's covered by cisco's capped binary distribution license with mpeg-la.
So "it's open source, but you can't use what you build".
IANAL, but you can use it if you build it yourself, and even up to some small-ish scale (100k users? check with the MPEG LA). Do get your own legal advice.
As someone tweeted at me, BSD is a free/libre license, but it lacks an explicit patent clause, so BSD-licensed code may well not be free as in speech. Hence my use of gratis to describe what Cisco will release, both source and binaries.
> BSD lacks a patent clause, but the vast majority of open source lawyers believe there is an implied patent license, so this is normally not an issue.
1. I'm an open source lawyer. This has been gone over many times at legal conferences, private and public mailing lists, etc.
2. Ask any others :)
Think of it this way: Your argument for giving someone a BSD licensed piece of software and then suing them over patents in it is "Yeah, I explicitly granted them the right to "freely redistribute and use it", but i didn't really mean for them to be able to do so"
At least in the US, roughly every open source lawyer i've met, believes a judge would have no trouble finding an implied license.
The only question is usually one of scope, and one of whether it would include sublicensing.
> Think of it this way: Your argument for giving someone a BSD licensed piece of software and then suing them over patents in it is "Yeah, I explicitly granted them the right to "freely redistribute and use it", but i didn't really mean for them to be able to do so"
Lawyers are a conservative bunch. So I'm sorry, I just don't believe that a lawyer would be so rash as to allow his client to expose himself like this.
But let's get down to brass tacks. Has there been any significant case law supporting this position?
A. We are not all conservative, we are risk managers. That is not the same. In this case, the risk is low.
As for "allow a client", i think you are confused. Lawyers analyze and assess risk and legal implications. We tell this to the client. The client gets the final say, and makes business decisions. If you live in a world where you need a lawyer's permission to "expose yourself like this", i suggest you run :)
B. Yes. A lot, at least in the US (other countries, more questionable). The general principle you are looking for is "legal estoppel". You don't get to promise people they can use something, and then try to stop them legally when they do.
This is true whether it's patents or contracts.
While most deals of the patent cases deal with sales, the case law is fairly clear on this exact point (IE that unless you explicitly disclaim an implied license, you won't get to give something to someone to use and then claim using it violates your patents). It just would be legal estoppel for a different reason other than sale.
So "it's open source, but you can't use what you build".